Interpreting the 2A

[Truebeliever]

Where in the 2A does it say common? The only reason that comes up is because a corrupt judge who was looking for a way to limit the 2A ruled as such.

All the government has to do is make certain guns uncommon via legislation or high taxes on them like they did with full auto to no longer make them protected.

You don't see the backhanded corruption there?

Do you understand that the bill of rights had a different meaning when it was adopted?

The words don’t have the same meaning now that they did then. You do understand that.

It’s sort of saying in 1950 that someone is gay. It has a different meaning now-lol

 

[Acer-m14]

The words don’t have the same meaning now that they did then. You do understand that.

really .. so FUCK U is different now because a politician says so .. or a flaming liberal ..

 

[Marine Cpl]

Do you understand that the bill of rights had a different meaning when it was adopted?

The words don’t have the same meaning now that they did then. You do understand that.

It’s sort of saying in 1950 that someone is gay. It has a different meaning now-lol

No to your first question.

And to your second question, it was already proven what the founders wanted. They were quoted on it.

Enough with that BS argument already. Go read the quotes from the actual writers and newspaper articles that the founders actually were quoted in saying.

I posted a newspaper article from The Federalist papers that was a full quote on what the meaning of well-regulated was by Alexander Hamilton himself.

 

[E the massive]

Just me being a dick, people need to justify their compitulation.

 

[Truebeliever]

name them laws .. and who followed them ..

Name who? and followed that ?

Go look up the shootouts of Wyatt Earp, or Bill Hickok

“According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, aggressively threatened the lawmen and defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons.”

They had very strict and enforced gun control. I never said it worked but it was enforced.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

 

[Marine Cpl]

Name who? and followed that ?

Go look up the shootouts of Wyatt Earp, or Bill Hickok

“According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, aggressively threatened the lawmen and defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons.”

They had very strict and enforced gun control. I never said it worked but it was enforced.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

Yes. And that was unconstitutional. Rights have been violated since the beginning.

 

[Acer-m14]

armed in violation of local ordinance,

then in USA there is a Town in Georgia that has one .. all must have as gun ..

In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.

how if Should be ,, and no rules on what type of gun too ..

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can't believe he's still defending regulations. Imagine if he was a judge instead of a retired NYPD cop? He would be quoting other unconstitutional laws and acts of the past and say that they were precedence to further limit our own.

 

[Truebeliever]

No to your first question.

And to your second question, it was already proven what the founders wanted. They were quoted on it.

Enough with that BS argument already. Go read the quotes from the actual writers and newspaper articles that the founders actually were quoted in saying.

Dude, the quotes were to an individual right. We agree. It wasn’t to any weapon you wanted. Go read the gun control in the old west link. The founders bodies were barely cold.

Even if you believe that, and advocate it. Come back to reality. You are like the guy trying to run the football in from your own 20 yard line instead of going for the first down to move the ball down the field first. You are not going to get to the goal by calling the guys who got the ball down to the 50 yard line traitors or corrupt.

Some have an honest disagreement with your position. Most, including most gun rights people disagree with you.

You kept reading the federalist papers as if the Bill of Rights didn’t originally only apply to the federal government as it was intended when written.

We showed you examples of some regulation but we disagree on how much.

The anti gun people don’t recognize the individual right and see it as a collective right of the state. You see it as an individual right with no limits including possession of nukes. We are telling you it’s somewhere between that.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Dude, the quotes were to an individual right. We agree. It wasn’t to any weapon you wanted. Go read the gun control in the old west link. The founders bodies were barely cold.

Even if you believe that, and advocate it. Come back to reality. You are like the guy trying to run the football in from your own 20 yard line instead of going for the first down to move the ball down the field first. You are not going to get to the goal by calling the guys who got the ball down to the 50 yard line traitors or corrupt.

Some have an honest disagreement with your position. Most, including most gun rights people disagree with you.

You kept reading the federalist papers as if the Bill of Rights didn’t originally only apply to the federal government as it was intended when written.

We showed you examples of some regulation but we disagree on how much.

The anti gun people don’t recognize the individual right and see it as a collective right of the state. You see it as an individual right with no limits including possession of nukes. We are telling you it’s somewhere between that.

Omg. So back to the George Washington. He would be okay okay with Virginia for example banning guns as long as it wasn't the Federal government itself.

Give me a break.

Who cares what other people think and wrongly want to interpret the Constitution as? it is what it says it is and it is what the founders were quoted in saying it is. Period.

 

[Acer-m14]

Dude, the quotes were to an individual right. We agree. It wasn’t to any weapon you wanted. Go read the gun control in the old west link. The founders bodies were barely cold.

You kept reading the federalist papers as if the Bill of Rights didn’t originally only apply to the federal government as it was intended when written.

then why was not .. 2A written with shall not infringe BUT!! ..

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't even know why we are debating him? His mind is already made up and will not change. Maybe it's because he did it for so many years at his job? I don't know? I hope not.

You can show him actual quotes from the writers of the Constitution themselves and it still won't change his mind. He'll ignore those and quote unconstitutional rulings from the Supreme Court and unconstitutional gun laws from municipalities in the past as being kosher because the government allowed them to stand.

You can quote Alexander Hamilton himself on what the meaning of well-regulated means and he'll still ignore it and say that it meant something else because some other judge said it did.

It's fruitless. I'm glad he's not a circuit court or Supreme Court judge. But then again, they are like him so it doesn't matter.

 

[Truebeliever]

then in USA there is a Town in Georgia that has one .. all must have as gun ..

In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.

how if Should be ,, and no rules on what type of gun too ..

We can agree on the Georgia town law if it does not violate someone’s religion but the people there are regulated as to what the can get and what they can carry by other laws ( state and federal). But they made that law and is not a 2nd admendment issue.

We are debating what the 2nd admendment is interpreted to be rather than what one feels it should be.

 

[Truebeliever]

then why was not .. 2A written with shall not infringe BUT!! ..

And no “abridge “ of the first admendment but there are limits to it. The question is what are those limits. The court recognized an individual right to which we all agree but what are the limits of it.

 

[Steal2B]

Name who? and followed that ?

Go look up the shootouts of Wyatt Earp, or Bill Hickok

“According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, aggressively threatened the lawmen and defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons.”

They had very strict and enforced gun control. I never said it worked but it was enforced.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

This article should not be given much weight in a 2A arguement since Everytown for Gun Safety filed this article in a Court brief and lost their case.

In a piece discussing this article and the Everytown brief ...

"A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't even know why we are debating him? His mind is already made up and will not change. Maybe it's because he did it for so many years at his job? I don't know? I hope not.

You can show him actual quotes from the writers of the Constitution themselves and it still won't change his mind. He'll ignore those and quote unconstitutional rulings from the Supreme Court and unconstitutional gun laws from municipalities in the past as being kosher because the government allowed them to stand.

You can quote Alexander Hamilton himself on what the meaning of well-regulated means and he'll still ignore it and say that it meant something else because some other judge said it did.

It's fruitless. I'm glad he's not a circuit court or Supreme Court judge. But then again, they are like him so it doesn't matter.

The quote from Hamilton supports individual right but does not say states can not regulate it. The bill of rights did not apply to the states. Go read the whole thing. And Madison who wrote it did pass laws that did say where , how, what could be carried out of the home.


What were the rights to bear arms when they said shall not be infringed. If it said my rights as a property owner could not be infringed would it mean I could build a nuclear reactor on it? Or a toxic dump or invite a national enemy to my house. No it doesn’t.

 

[Truebeliever]

This article should not be given much weight in a 2A arguement since Everytown for Gun Safety filed this article in a Court brief and lost their case.

In a piece discussing this article and the Everytown brief ...

"A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”

I think it works to our favor. It shows gun control didn’t work.

 

[E the massive]

The quote from Hamilton supports individual right but does not say states can not regulate it. The bill of rights did not apply to the states. Go read the whole thing. And Madison who wrote it did pass laws that did say where , how, what could be carried out of the home.


What were the rights to bear arms when they said shall not be infringed. If it said my rights as a property owner could not be infringed would it mean I could build a nuclear reactor on it? Or a toxic dump or invite a national enemy to my house. No it doesn’t.

Toxic dumps, nuke reactors and harboring the enemy would infringe on neighboring property owners rights and health.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The quote from Hamilton supports individual right but does not say states can not regulate it. The bill of rights did not apply to the states. Go read the whole thing. And Madison who wrote it did pass laws that did say where , how, what could be carried out of the home.


What were the rights to bear arms when they said shall not be infringed. If it said my rights as a property owner could not be infringed would it mean I could build a nuclear reactor on it? Or a toxic dump or invite a national enemy to my house. No it doesn’t.

Omg. So all gun control rulings only affect the federal government and not the state?

Come on man. You've quoted other rulings in previous posts that apply to an individual state that was infringing on personal rights.

Other Supreme Court rulings that aren't gun related struck down state laws. What are you talkin about?

So which is it?

 

[Acer-m14]

And no “abridge “ of the first admendment but there are limits to it. The question is what are those limits. The court recognized an individual right to which we all agree but what are the limits of it.

what is the 1A limits ??

what are the voting limits ??

 

[FrankenCub]

If the big deal is limitations, maybe the discussion should be whether these should be legal

or these

One just can not use the 1st as a defining decision whether something should have limitations or not. I see no movement to shut down the internet. Sure, there are some things you can say that will get you arrested, just as well as threatening someone with a firearm. The 1st doesn't limit what you use to express your Rights. But somehow it's all well and fine to limit what we use to express our 2nd. The 2nd is being treated as a 2nd class Right and the courts are allowing it to happen. They damn well wont do the same to the 1st.

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't even know why we are debating him? His mind is already made up and will not change. Maybe it's because he did it for so many years at his job? I don't know? I hope not.

You can show him actual quotes from the writers of the Constitution themselves and it still won't change his mind. He'll ignore those and quote unconstitutional rulings from the Supreme Court and unconstitutional gun laws from municipalities in the past as being kosher because the government allowed them to stand.

You can quote Alexander Hamilton himself on what the meaning of well-regulated means and he'll still ignore it and say that it meant something else because some other judge said it did.

It's fruitless. I'm glad he's not a circuit court or Supreme Court judge. But then again, they are like him so it doesn't matter.

The quotes don’t mean what you think they do. It supports an individual right. We agree. We agree what was a militia was made of. So me how it says more than that.

 

[Truebeliever]

what is the 1A limits ??

Obscenity, calls for immediate unlawful violence, are too examples

 

[E the massive]

Obscenity, calls for immediate unlawful violence, are too examples

Not even enforced.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Obscenity, calls for immediate unlawful violence, are too examples

And there shouldn't be laws against that either. If what you are saying insights a riot, then you should get charged with inciting a riot and not the actual words. Just like having a gun is legal but menacing someone with it isn't. You get charged for menacing and not for the gun itself in a free state.

But if we leave it to the government, anything you say bad about the government is inciting a riot.

 

[Truebeliever]

If the big deal is limitations, maybe the discussion should be whether these should be legal

or these

One just can not use the 1st as a defining decision whether something should have limitations or not. I see no movement to shut down the internet. Sure, there are some things you can say that will get you arrested, just as well as threatening someone with a firearm. The 1st doesn't limit what you use to express your Rights. But somehow it's all well and fine to limit what we use to express our 2nd. The 2nd is being treated as a 2nd class Right and the courts are allowing it to happen. They damn well wont do the same to the 1st.

I would love to have both weapons and think I should be able to get it.

Can they regulate it with CCW permits , sure.

Do I think the 2nd should stop being a step child tonthd other rights no.

But just like I can’t just go into a courtroom and speak asvthe judge is trying to hear a case, it can be regulated. It’s what those are..I think I should be able to own the common arms or the effective arms of a basic military person. Semi auto “assault “ rifle fits that. A semi pistol fits that.

 

[Acer-m14]

And there shouldn't be laws against that either. If what you are saying insights a riot, then you should get charged with inciting a riot and not the actual words. Just like having a gun is legal but menacing someone with it isn't. You get charged for menacing and not for the gun itself in a free state.

But if we leave it to the government, anything you say bad about the government is inciting a riot.

like yelling FIRE in a theater .. yes you can .. just have the $$$$ to pay for the damage of everyone there ..

 

[E the massive]

Obscenity, calls for immediate unlawful violence, are too examples

Those don't remotely threaten the power structure. The natural born right to protect against tyranny and slavery is the only one that is so threatened, let that sink in.

 

[Truebeliever]

Not even enforced.

Yes, they are. Community standards determine obscenity. Go see what happened in the past with Lenny Bruce, stonewall riots, go masterbate on a subway and call it performance art and see if it’s enforced.


Go callnin a bomb threat , stay for the police to come , tell them you did it and see if it’s not enforced.

 

[E the massive]

Yes, they are. Community standards determine obscenity. Go see what happened in the past with Lenny Bruce, stonewall riots, go masterbate on a subway and call it performance art and see if it’s enforced.


Go callnin a bomb threat , stay for the police to come , tell them you did it and see if it’s not enforced.

And members of Congress calling for harrasment, local officials backing violent groups. What happened with those?
ETA That's cool tho cause 1a.
ETA again celebs calling for the death of a sitting POTUS. Yeah cause the 1a.